This is one of several posts on drink in the Middle Ages. The others are:
At the start of our era, Tacitus (c. 56 – after 117) famously wrote of the Germans: “Their beverage is a liquor drawn from barley or from wheat, and, like the juice of the grape, fermented to a spirit.” Note that he does not name the drink, but only describes it, as if it was unfamiliar and exotic. Which raises a simple question: how did Tacitus not already know of beer, or something very like it?
- Beyond wine, water and beer: what else they drank in Medieval France
- The great Medieval water myth
- Early Medieval French wine
- Getting drunk in Medieval France
At the start of our era, Tacitus (c. 56 – after 117) famously wrote of the Germans: “Their beverage is a liquor drawn from barley or from wheat, and, like the juice of the grape, fermented to a spirit.” Note that he does not name the drink, but only describes it, as if it was unfamiliar and exotic. Which raises a simple question: how did Tacitus not already know of beer, or something very like it?
For
one thing, in the same period Roman soldiers in Britain were not only
drinking it, but using what would become one of the common words for
it. Around 100 C. E., a Roman decurion in Britain wrote: "My
fellow-soldiers do not have any cervesa; I request that you
order some to be sent." (Nelson) This may only be, however,
because they were stationed in a place where it was common.
Still,
Tacitus was certainly not the first in Roman, nor even Greek, culture
to mention it. In his own case, he was a friend of Pliny the Younger,
whose uncle, Pliny the Elder (23 – 79) had already written of the
drink: “From these [grains] are made drinks, zythum in
Egypt, celia and ceria in Spain, cervisia and
several sorts in Gaul, and in several other
countries.”.
One of these words – cervisia
– became the standard term (cervoise)
for the drink in Gaul; the others are among the
most common ones found in earlier writers. What
is more, Tacitus' own father may have been stationed in
Belgium. While a Roman official would have had no trouble importing
wine, it is very likely that the local Gauls drank, as the Gauls
always had, some form of fermented grain drink.
And
yet Tacitus treats it as a new discovery, unknown to him otherwise.
Tacitus'
peculiar ignorance is not exceptional; it would still be found
centuries later. Yet, if writers from Latin cultures tended to view
beer as a “barbarian” drink, it had been known long before Roman contact with the groups (Gauls and Germans) they
considered so.
Defining
the terms
Before
proceeding, it is important to understand the shifting terminology
on this subject.
In
general, a modern reader should be aware in reading about “beer”
in this period that that word may translate a number of different
words or even descriptions in Latin, none of which correspond to the
French (originally German) word (bière), which did not appear until after this time. The drink
in question was most often made from barley or wheat, but it was also
made from oats, spelt or a number of other grains. Some was simply
infused; some was produced using relatively complex methods. The
words for these drinks – zythos, ceria, curma,
cervoise, etc – are sometimes defined in contradictory ways,
either because writers themselves did not properly understand their
meanings or because different groups made them differently. None, for
most of the Middle Ages, was made with hops (and so would not have
kept for long periods).
To
complicate matters, modern writers often refer to the older drinks as
“ale” to distinguish them from later beer. But the distinction
between ale and beer varies depending on the context (today it often
refers to “top” vs “bottom” fermentation).
It
should be unnecessary to point out that, whatever exactly these
drinks were, none much resembled the commercial product most drink
today. Notably, they would have been cloudier, often with a foam of
yeast floating on top (allowing Gallic bakers, as Pliny famously
noted, to use it in bread). Some was even drunk with a straw. The
beer itself, not made with hops, would not have been as bitter;
still, there is evidence that either wormwood or hops was sometimes
added when drinking it, simply for taste. But then, so were other
things (honey, spices, etc.). Early Roman and Frankish drinkers were
not shy about “enhancing” their alcohol.
The
earliest beer
The
first recorded beer was made in Sumeria. It is unlikely that either
the Greeks or the Romans knew much of Sumerian culture. But both were
acquainted with the next nation known to have made beer: Egypt. In
the fifth century B.C.E., the playwright Aeschylus (c. 525/524 B.C.E.
– c. 456/455 B.C.E.) had a Greek king tell an Egyptian herald,
“Nay, thou shalt find the dwellers of this land /Are also males,
and drink not draughts of ale/From barley brewed”. Note that, though he is addressing someone from a sophisticated
culture, he already speaks of beer with contempt.
Whether
the drink somehow made its way from the Mideast to northern Europe or
was independently invented
by the Gauls and/or the Germans is unclear. Some see a Babylonian
influence in German terms for numbers, so it is not impossible that
exchanges occurred between
these cultures, despite the
distance between them
(Menninger).
Others
have traced it from Egypt via Spain. Eyer
writes “Given how popular
beer was in Gaul, one can ask if it was introduced or if it is among
the inherited knowledge of the Gauls..." He explains that
the first records of beer-making, and on an industrial scale, come
from Sumeria; then:
From the fact that Egyptians exported their beer of Pelusium – the Egyptian Munich – all the way to the Iberian peninsula, it has been deduced that the way of making it was introduced by this route into Gaul. Well, we know that the making of beer among the Gauls took place in a domestic context and that it was, like baking bread, a woman's task. If truly the Egyptians had introduced beer into Gaul, this would have taken the form of industrial breweries like the original ones and the beer would have been made following Egyptian recipes. Well then, ingredients, beyond barley, were used in the making of zythos which were not found on Gallic soil.
However,
he says, barley grew well there. Further, the export of Egyptian
beers seems to have come well after the beginnings of making beer in
Gaul. “We can then say that the making of beer was done in Gaul for
all time independently of foreign influences.” (He also refers to
linguistic proof of this, though without providing details.)
Athenaeus
of Naucratis (2nd-3rd c.) quotes Posidonius (ca. 135 B.C.E. – 51
B.C.E.) as saying of the Gauls that the rich drank wine. but “the
poor drink Zythum, which is made from wheat and honey: and
many drink it without honey and call it corma.” (Pauperes
bibunt Zythum, quod fit ex tritico et melle: a multis bibitur sine
melle, et vocatur corma.)
This
is interesting on two counts. One is that it provides a rare
distinction between zythos and corma/curmi (even
if this seems to contradict later data; see below.). The other is
that he again shows that beer, even among the Gauls, was looked down
upon (probably because the upper classes wanted to imitate the
dominant regional culture; that is, the Romans).
Virgil
(70 – 19 B.C.E.) describes
a similar drink made from sorbus (service) berries by the Scythes, “a
joyful drink of fermented and sour sorbus imitating wine.”
(pocula
laeti
Fermento atque acidis
imitantur
vitea sorbis ). Otherwise, at
just about the time of
Caesar's conquest of Gaul (58
B.C.E). Diodorus of Sicily
wrote (60 – 30 B.C.E.) that
the Gauls used a drink made from barley.
Strabo
(64/63
B.C.E.
– c. 24 C.E.)
mentions Lusitanians (in
Iberia) drinking zytho.
Note by the way that if beer is often referred to as a northern (that is, Germanic or Gallic) drink, it also has a long history in Spain.
Note by the way that if beer is often referred to as a northern (that is, Germanic or Gallic) drink, it also has a long history in Spain.
Just before Pliny
and Tacitus wrote about the drink, Dioscorides (c. 40 – 90 CE)
wrote of two different barley drinks: zythos and curmi:
Zithon, which one drinks, is made of Barley. Once drunk, this Zithon provokes urine, but it damages the kidneys and nerves, and especially the panicles of the brain. It causes windiness and nasty humors in the body, and makes men into lepers....
One also makes from Barley that brew called Curmi, and which is used in sacred places, but which causes headaches, engenders coarse humors and hurts the nerves. These sorts of brews are also made of wine, in parts of Brittany and Iberia, facing the West.
With
all this, there is yet another reason one would think that, after
Caesar, beer would have been familiar to Romans: Rome now ruled
Egypt, where it had always been made, and even levied a brewery tax
there.
Pliny
might well have known of some of the accounts above, since he uses
the same terms in his passage on the drink. Is it natural that
Tacitus did not? Given how many accounts of grain-based drinks
already existed at this point, should he at least have been familiar
with the general concept?
One can only
speculate. But these two writers were certainly not the last Romans
to describe such drinks.
Beer after Pliny
and Tacitus
Cassius
Dio (c.155 – 235) wrote that the people in Pannonia (towards what
is now Serbia, Slovenia and neighboring areas) ate and drank both
barley and millet. About the same time, the Roman jurist Ulpian (c.
170 – 228) wrote that "certain zythos, which is made
from wheat, from barley or from bread, is not included [as wine in a
bequest]".
More
striking is the mention in Diocletian's edict (303) setting prices of
cervesiae cami and, at half the price, zythi. This
shows that these drinks were officially being sold in the Roman
empire at this point. It also shows cami (probably curmi)
as more valued than zythos.
The
Gauls continued to drink
beer even as Roman influence
made wine more generally available. Eyer
cites a Gallic altar found near Sarrebourg (now in the Museum of
Metz) which shows two figures: Nantasuelta and Sucellus. By
attributes shown in the image, he concludes that Nantasuelta
(standing by what may be a beehive) was the goddess of hydromel and
Sucellus – holding a cooper's hammer – was the god of beer. One
vessel found in Paris from around the fourth century bears two
different inscriptions: “Hostess fill my cup with beer” and
“Innkeeper have this cup filled with spiced wine”, showing a
convivial
coexistence of the two drinks.
Around
the same time the Emperor Julian (reigned
361 – 363) wrote an epigram
against “wine made from barley”, saying that the Gauls “lacking
grapes made wine of grains” which had the “smell of a goat”
(unlike wine, which had “the smell of nectar”). UPDATE 6/30/2017: It is curious however that he says that the Gauls lacked grapes, since he himself praised those around Paris; he may simply have been resisting the idea that Gauls actually preferred beer.
Writing
slightly later, Marcellus Empiricus (Burdigalensis) (4th-5th c.)
mentioned cervisia in
a matter of fact way. In one passage he suggests making a hot potion
of salt in "cervisia
or curmi"
(cervesae aut curmi).
(Unfortunately, he gives no
hint of how they differ; note
that Diocletian's edict conflates them.)
In another, he suggests
putting a pill into beer, but gives an alternate version for
provinces in which there is no beer (in qua cervisia non
est). This
highlights
the fact that the drink's use remained regional.
Slightly later, Paulus
Orosius (c. 375 – after 418) not only mentioned the drink but
virtually described how to make it. He tells
of the Numantians (in Iberia)
using a drink “which was not wine” made
with the juice of wheat made through skill, which juice they called caelia from being heated [calefactio]. In fact the potency of the grain of the soaked cereal is activated by this fire and then it is dried, and after being reduced to flour is mixed with soft juice.
(Nelson translation)
Beer under the
early Franks
In
486, Clovis I made the Franks rulers of a major part of Gaul; soon
they would drive out other Germanic groups that had made similar
conquests elsewhere. Now the very people among whom Tacitus had noted
grain drinks were rulers of Gaul.
Early
in this era, Anthimus wrote in a dietetic for Theuderic
I (reigned 511-534):
“Drinking
cervoise
and
mead or aloxinum
is
fine for almost everyone. Because cervoise
which has been well made and has its full force does us as much good
as the infusions of other sorts which we make.” Though
Anthimus was a Greek with
a strong Latin culture, he
was clearly familiar with
the drink.
By
the time of Gregory
of Tours (c.
538 – 594),
then,
beer would seem to have been well-known to Latin speakers as well as
their new Germanic leaders.
Yet
in The Glory of the Confessors, he tells of a man cooking
grains which had been swollen by water and
germinated to
make a drink; that is, of grains being malted in an early step in
brewing. But, like Tacitus, centuries before, he describes the process yet
does not name the drink. Elsewhere,
writing
of Auvergne he says
"a drink is made for the harvesters... which is prepared with
grains soaked and cooked in water; it is the same preparation called
ceria,
according to Orosius,
from the word meaning to
cook." This
is more striking still; clearly he knew of the drink through
literature,
but regarded it as a curiosity in his own experience.
To
complicate matters, he appears to reference it more concisely in his Glory of the Martyrs and his history of the Franks. Most translations have him here
referring
directly to beer. But in fact the Latin word he uses – sicera
– only meant strong drink (later it would specifically refer to
cider): vinum aut siceram ("wine or sicera"); Vinum, siceram, vel omne quod inebriare potest ("wine, sicera, or all that can inebriate"). Still, given that the drink in question was offered as an
alternative to wine, it is hard to think it would not have been beer.
Why then does he not use any of the several words mentioned by other
classical writers for it? Again, one can only wonder, especially
since Gregory's friend and contemporary, Fortunatus (c.530 – c.600/609)
wrote of a man who “ruined water” with cervoise
which “muddies bottles with its dregs.” In
listing the drinks Radegund avoided, he again mentions “cloudy
beer”. (cervisaeque
turbidinem).
Fortunatus' very mention of it, like
Anthimus'
mention of it for Theuderic, shows
that it was served at the better Frankish tables. Both Clothar
(Radegund's husband) and Theuderic, as kings, would have had access to
wine and no doubt both drank it. But being Franks, they also
continued to drink beer.
Yet
just after this, Jonas
of Bobbio (c. 600 – after
659), writing of St Columban
in Gaul, thought it again
necessary to explain what the
drink was: “cervoise....
which is cooked from the juices of wheat or barley.” He then goes
on to say that it was the preferred beverage in Gaul, Britain,
Ireland and other nations, though not among the Scotch and the people
of the Dardanelles. Yet curiously Jonas too uses the word sicera to describe what is probably
beer, in a famous incident in which Columban was visiting the king of
Burgundy Theuderic II (587 – 613) and destroyed vessels of “wine and
strong drink” (vinaque
ac sicera) with a
gesture.
Again, if he meant beer, why not just use the word cervoise? And if he did not, what ever was the "strong drink" in question (spirits were still a long way off)?
These
references across several centuries suggest that, even though it was
the favored drink of the Gauls and Germans, for
a long time beer
remained so little known among those of Roman
culture that some continued to rediscover it. Was this because even beer-drinkers
seemed to prefer wine when they could get it and those in the south, especially, had relatively ready access to the latter?
Beer becomes established
By the seventh century, cervoise had become standard
enough for the monk Marculfe to include it (c. 650 – 655) in a list of
items to be provided to traveling officials (“so many muids of
white bread, wine and cervoise”). By the next, it was listed, matter-of-factly, as a rent in various monastic and manorial records.
This was now Charlemagne's time and some credit him
with the spread of monastic brewing:
With the spread of his Holy Roman Empire around 800 AD, Charlemagne built many monasteries across Europe, many of which became centres of brewing (Unger 2004). Initially, most of the monasteries were located in Southern Europe, where the climate permitted the monks to grow grapes and make wine for themselves and their guests. However, when later monasteries were established in Northern regions of Europe, where the cooler climate made it easier to grow barley instead of grapes, the monks started to brew beer instead of wine (Jackson 1996).
(Poelmans and Swinnen)
On Charlemagne's own estates, De Villis refers to sicatores (makers
of strong drink) who were specifically qualified to make beer. It
continued to generally be made from barley or wheat, (Wirth, 126) but
any grain might serve the purpose. The charter for the abbey of
Saint-Denis mentions beer made with spelt.
In
832, the rents for this abbey included malt; that is, a product prepared especially for making beer.
Beer by now was standard enough as a drink that the
Church seems to have excluded simple beer from penances, even when
flavored beer was singled out. In
868, the Council of Worms ordered
certain penitents to abstain from wine, mead and “honeyed beer”
(cervisia
mellita)
three
times a week; in
895, the Council of Tribur made a similar pronouncement.
Regino
(abbot of
Prüm
892–99)
also uses this phrase in
penances for homicide, parricide and fratricide (and for the latter
two one only had to abstain three days a week!). Yet
none of these lists include simple beer, suggesting that the unflavored version was too
basic to ban.
Hopping towards true beer
The history of the use of hops in beer is as fitful as that of beer itself.
The Franks had used hops as a flavoring for centuries. The remains
of mead found in a fifth century grave in Cologne included traces of
hops (Salins). Both hops and wormwood were used to add a bitter taste
which drinkers of the time apparently enjoyed, perhaps in contrast to
the honey which (as above) was also often added.Hopping towards true beer
The history of the use of hops in beer is as fitful as that of beer itself.
Charlemagne's own records are some of the first to mention hops. At St. Amand-les-Eaux (one of the emperor's estates) tenants gave “10 measures of malt and 2 measures of hops” and on another farm “6 measures of malt and one measure of hops”. It is interesting however that tenants at another gave “25 buckets of cervoise.” The fact that the beer could be given as a rent shows that it remained drinkable for sometime after it was made, which suggests the use of hops or something similar.
In statutes written for the abbey of Corbie in 822, it is
specified in regard to hops that the porter “will acquire enough
for himself to make his beer.” (sibi adquirat
unde ad cervisas suas faciendas sufficienter habeat).
This would appear to be a clear statement that hops were used in
making the beer itself.
An important innovation was the introduction of hops in brewing. There is evidence that already around 800 AD, German monasteries added extracts of the hops plant to preserve their beer longer. Moreover, the bitterness of the hops also balanced the rather sweet flavour of the malt, the other main ingredient of Germanic beer (Behre 1983 and 1999). This innovation would ultimately transform the entire global beer economy. However, despite its benefits, the use of hops did not spread rapidly over the beer producing regions in Europe. In fact, it would last several centuries before its use would be widely accepted.
(Poelmans and Swinnen)
These authors go on to postulate that the use of
hops spread slowly in part because of tax issues; the special mixture
called, in the north, gruit was taxed, while
hops were not. “Therefore, in many regions, including Britain and
Holland, the use of hops was prohibited for a long time.” For
whatever reason, it is true that as late as the
thirteenth
century, Parisian makers of cervoise were forbidden to
use anything in their product but water and grain. Only some specific
additives were named – berries,
spices or pitch – but hops would seem to have been out of the
question as well.
In fact, the Middle
Ages were already ending by the time the use of hops became
established. In the mid
to late fourteenth century,
the Belgian monk Leonard was already
referring to hoppa
– that is, hopped beer –
as a regular drink at a Liège
monastery. Says
Eyer:
Towards the end of the fourteenth century, the use of hops became general to the detriment of other herbs. It is useful to recall the decisive intervention of the duke of Burgundy and of Flanders, John the Fearless, who, to promote the use of hops and to underline the importance he attached to it, created the Order of Hops. Beer, such as we know it, was born.
Strangely, the fact that flavoring with hops became exclusive bit by bit, coincides roughly with the introduction of the term "beer" [bière] which would take the place of that of cervoise. It is thus starting at the beginning of the fifteenth century that we can truly speak of beers in France.
The long road to beer
What does it mean that Tacitus was unfamiliar with
beer even as Roman soldiers were drinking it, and after a long
history of its mention in literature? Or that, centuries later,
Gregory of Tours, writing under Frankish rule, again found it
necessary to describe the drink to his readers even as it was already
served on royal tables?
The answers to these questions may have more to do
with the nature of how knowledge was disseminated in these early
centuries and how exchanges occurred between the Latin and other
cultures than it does with the actual history of the use of beer.
Still, the questions themselves show that beer, if it became a major
Medieval drink, was far from universal by the start of the Middle
Ages, even in its simplest form, well before the use of hops began –
virtually with the Renaissance – to change it to the drink we know
today.
FOR FURTHER READING:
Le Grand d'Aussy's texts on hydromel, cider, beer and other drinks are now available in translation:
- On Kindle: Beer, Cider, and Spirits in Old Regime France
- In paperback: Beer, Cider and Spirits in Old Regime France
Eyer, Frédérique "La Cervoise et la Bière au Moyen Age et à la Renaissance", Bulletin philologique et historique jusqu'à 1610 du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques v1 1968
Julien, Oeuvres complètes de l'empereur Julien tr Tourlet v3 1821
Marcellus
(Empiricus), Marcelli De medicamentis liber 1889
Grégoire de Tours, "De Gloria Martyrum", Les livres des miracles et autres opuscules de Georges-Florent Grégoire, évêque de Tours 1857
Grégoire de Tours, Histoire ecclésiastique des francs. ed Guadet, Book V 1836
Fortunatus, Venance, "Vita S. Radegundis Reginae", Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina v88 1850
Ionas, "Vitae Columbani Vedastis, Iohannis Liber I", Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, 1905
Marculfus,
Jérôme
Bignon, Francois Pithou, Thierry Bignon apud Sebastianum Cramoisy, et
Sebastianum Mabre-Cramoisy, Marculfi
monachi aliorumque auctorum Formulae veteres. Accessit Liber legis
salicae 1666
Wirth,
Max, Histoire de la Fondation des Etats Germaniques 1873
Levillain, L., "Etat de Redevance de Saint Denis (832)", Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire de Paris et de l'Ile-de-France, V35-36 1908
Poisson, Nicolas Joseph,. Delectus actorum ecclesiae universalis, seu nova summa conciliorum
v1 1706
Regino (Abbot of Prüm), Reginonis abbatis Prumiensis libri duo de synodalibus causis et disciplinis ecclesiasticis 1840
FOR AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANTHIMUS' TEXT:
Thanks again for the resource on my blog!
ReplyDeleteIt's funny that you walk through the "zythos" path - I've done that myself, albeit in a somewhat less detailed fashion:
http://thedraughtsaredeep.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/zythum-an-egyptian-precursor-to-beer/
However, you might be interested to know that I found two different processing methods for it - one documented in the Talmud, and the other allegedly from Zosimos of Panopolis.
I've been using those processing methods to attempt to inform interpretations of the other beverages that Pliny mentions alongside it.
Excellent writings!
Your review of zythos is in fact quite informative (and reminds me I need to dip into the Talmud a bit).
ReplyDeleteI'm also thrilled you're playing with early brewing methods. I'm not a brewer but tried some myself just because I kept reading period accounts of very domestic brewing. Unfortunately, finding unpearled barley in L.A. is a trial. So seeing someone with the chops do it is very useful.